Sep 142011
 

One of the favorite “arguments” put forward by Creationists is the notion that the eye is far too complex to have evolved on its own, and it needed an Intelligent designer. Unsurprisingly, this argument is bunk, and easily defeated.

[youtube 7jEhzAn1hDc]

And another example of the same basic idea:

[youtube fOtP7HEuDYA]

A longer (11 minute) version, with a computer program that shows that Darwinian evolution is far faster than purely random chance.

[youtube 6sdYGpTR0bM&NR]

 Posted by at 3:17 pm

  3 Responses to “Evolution of the Eye”

  1. Of course, the evolution of the eye is impossible to Creationists. Given the time frame they operate in, it is virtually impossible that the eye could have evolved in 6,000 to 10,000 years, much less anything else.

    If you expand the time frame to billions of years instead of thousands of years, then the evolution of the eye is more than possible. It actually fits and makes sense.

    It’s relatively easy to disprove Creationism and refute their arguments. People at one time knew that the Earth was flat and everything revolved around our planet!

    • > It’s relatively easy to disprove Creationism and refute their arguments.

      Actually… no, not so much. Not because their arguments have any validity… but because their arguments have so much *volume.* I’ve noticed that a lot of creationists are a lot like 9/11 “Truthers” or Apollo-hoaxers or flying saucer nuts and the like, in that they’ve wrapped themselves around their core beliefs and tend to obsess over them. Beyond the difficulty in trying to convince such a person of *anything* he disagrees with, there’s the difficult problem of the fact that obsessives by definition dwell on this stuff, and tend to have volumes of minutia at their command. Humans generally aren’t walking Wikipedias, so when you encounter a creationist/truther/whatever, chances are that he’s going to have the tactical advantage. Where you might have to look something up to provide facts to counter his claim… he’s going to have another claim. And another and another and another all lined up and ready to go.

  2. There was a recent issue of SKEPTIC that should be required reading:
    “Why People Do Not Understand Evolution”
    http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol16n03.html

    The work on micelles continues here
    http://www.plluisi.org/res-develop.html
    “In particular, we are now known as one of the few European chemistry groups working in the area of the origin of life.”

    Shocking news on how creationism is spreading even in Europe–Muslim creationism.

    Earlier on this site I posited an idea that vortex action off smokers could have had a role in life:
    http://up-ship.com/blog/blog/?p=6143

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.